Sunday, July 15, 2012

Hey! A Sweep!

Starting pitcher
Zo

If you
saw the last time Matt Cain pitched against the Astros, you might think that he struggled this time out.Matt threw
108 pitches to get through 6 1/3 innings. He gave up 5 hits and 2 runs, only one of which was earned.Matt’s own throwing error in the third
allowed Houston’s first run.It seems
like that was sort of earned, because it was the pitcher’s fault, but,
whatever.It was a good thing that the
Giants got to Bud Norris early because he looked like he was on a roll after
that.Giants got a couple walks in the
fourth, but failed to score.Then, Pablo
doubled to start the fifth in Melky’s spot in the line-up (he has a couple of days off, for good reason),
and Buster Posey singled him in.As it
turned out, the Giants would have to make that 3-2 score stand up, although they
had 3 base runners after that.The
Giants only got 7 hits on the day, and 3 of them were Posey’s.Fortunately, they were bunched around the top
of the line-up.We used five relievers
to get 8 outs, Affeldt got 4 of them in relief of Cain, and Casilla got the final two outs for a
relatively uneventful save.

The Giants failed to win the last three times Matt pitched, in Oakland June 24, against Cincinnati June 29 and in D.C. on July 5. Matt only picked up an L in the Cincinnati game. So Matt is now in double digits in the W column! I want him to be a 20 game winner in 2012. If you want to see Matt's game score, you'll have to look it up here. I think the game score is rather silly, really. I remember, back in the 1990's, seeing Greg Maddux throw complete games with pitch counts in the 80's and 90's. As I understand it, game score gives extra credit for strike-outs. Is it really better to take three pitches (or more) to strike a guy out than it is to throw one pitch and get an out on a weak dribbler? Discuss. Or not. A day off, then a game Tuesday in Atlanta, where the Braves have been good of late.

14 comments:

It seemed as if Houston had a strategy that if they could not hit him, they should foul off any good pitches, and up his pitch count. It worked to some extent, but they still could not get more than 2 runs.

Just a note on Lincecum. I noticed that despite his 9.00 ERA on the road, his K's/9innings on the road is 11.11. He is more dominant with the K's on the road, and less effective on the road. I think there could be a lot of reasons for this but I would be interested in others' ideas.

It's definitely better to strike guys out than to induce grounders, since even weak contact can result in hits / errors. Perhaps, however, I should consider that not even strikeouts guarantee outs after last night's game.

Max - I understand the rationale, I just question it. Someone made some choices on the elements and weighting of game scores. They could have just as easily added a negative factor for pitches over 100, for example, or any number of other things. After all, more pitches has to equal more arm wear. Sabermetrics (or, the newer more esoteric stats) make for new and interesting ways to look at the game. But they tend to still be mostly counting stats and, although each creates a new perspective on how to look at players, none is the be-all-end-all stat (not even WAR). Because crazy old men who have written sports columns for newspapers for 30 years never got beyond a deep mistrust of anything new, and considers anyone who doesn't suck up their hoary platitudes as gospel to live in their mother's basement, we seem to have developed a culture war between "defenders of the new statistics" and "I've been watching the game for 80 years, dont' bother me with information." I credit FireJoeMorgan as one of the most important works of critical thinking in our time. OK, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but I do credit them with awakening in me an awareness of sports journalism that I had never thought about before. With it came an opportunity to think more about about the game and analysis of it. All analysis. Saturday, Tim had a gs of 82; Sunday, Matt had a gs of 62. That's a statistically significant difference. The results, a W for Matt (although, by all rights, Tim should have one, too), adn 2 Ws for the team. Maybe Matt just knows how to win :)Nomis - Statistical anomaly??? Obviously, to strike out a batter, you have to put the ball in the strike zone (or at least make the batter think the ball is in the strike zone). When you do that, sometimes the batter hits the ball. And when that happens, some of those balls batted do not turn into outs. (Wait, did I just contradict my prior argument?). Tim's BABIP is nearly 100 points higher on the road than at home (.381 vs .288).

I agree about FJM. GameScore is a Bill James creation. Like all stats, it has its limits, but it is a nice snapshot.

Saberistas love strikeouts as they are one of the three "true outcomes" in a PA (K, BB, HR). So if you see TTO you will know what it means. The idea behind TTO is that it is independent of the fielders (DIPS theory is all about "defense independent pitching statistics").

A W for a pitcher does mean something. What it means is that the team has had the ability to score more runs than the pitcher has given up, and that the pitcher has lasted at least five innings. That's not nothing, although you are correct, it is the team W that counts. I like to see our starters pile up Ws because it means not only that they are good, measurable in a number of ways, but also that our offense has at least something going for it, which is an improvement over last year. I want the Giants to have 3 20 W pitchers, and I want it this year. That's not all I want, though. Mark - your picture seems to indicate that there is something on your face. Maybe it is a misprint.

For any batter you can check out his BABIP by dividing the strike zone into nine zones and check out his BABIP in each zone. You can do that for a pitcher too. One can compare the zone, or even the pitch (2 seam fastball, 4 seam fastball, slider, cutter, curve etc.) One can even find the BABIP for ball hit that are not in the strike zone. But one does not have to convince an old sports writer that better stuff, in better locations, to worse hitters, yields a lower BABIP. My friend who is an old time sports writer, says he finds the new stats useful, and some times insightful, but he tells me mostly they just tell him what he already knows.

Exactly, "pitcher wins" is about how a TEAM performs, so why care? Following Matt Cain's career has made me entirely immune to that stat.

What I like about the new stats is the attempt to even things out. We all knew that ERA was inflated at Coors and depressed at PacBell, but by how much? Can you quantify the differences? Traditional batting stats are sadly lacking when it comes to finding the best hitter. The new stats may only be a little better, but at least they are trying, and I like that. You won't see something new without a new set of lenses, eh?

Just read an article on hardballtalk - what have royals fans done to deserve Johnny Sanchez? - with Sabey Sabes trades looking good so far this year, what does he do to fortify before the deadline? Most likely small bullpen stuff, but there are some starting pitchers out there if he wanted to shock and awe...

I say we wait to see if J.Sanchez passes waivers, and if he does, make him a Tidrow, Rags, project, with eyes this year toward the bullpen. He is out of wack, but the could be fixed, at least enough to be an effective reliever this year.